In the District Court of Norton County Kansas
E. M. Turner vs Elizabeth Turner Amended petition for a
divorce 1883
The above named plaintiff E. M. Turner for cause of action against said defendant Elizabeth Turner says:
That he has been an actual resident of the state of Kansas for more then the last year past and proceeding the commencement of this action, and that he is at the present time a actual and bona fide resident of said Norton County. That on or about the 11th day of June 1879 he was lawfully married to the said Elizabeth Turner defendant at Blissfield Lenawee County in the state of Michigan. That on or about September 1879 and at divers (different) other times after that time and between that time and the 1st of February 1882 the said defendant (Eliz) was guilty of extreme cruelty towards this plaintiff with out any just cause or provocation on the part of your petitioner whatever and that said extreme cruelly consisted in actions as follows to wit:
Plaintiff (E M) would farther show that he is a practicing
physician, that by the practice of medicine is the only means of support he has
and that he could not make a living at any other business. That soon after his
marriage with this said defendant, whenever he the said plaintiff would visit a
patient, she the defendant would abuse him the plaintiff and accuse him of
running after other women and use very vulgar and profane language and at every
possible opportunity would insult and drive from him his patients until she had
completely ruined his practice of medicine, so that it became necessary for him
to leave the State of Michigan where he had formally lived and remove to the
State of Kansas. That shortly after moving to Kansas, which was about April
1881. She was as abuseful as ever driving lady patients away from the house of
this plaintiff, where he had his office at said time using profane and vulgar
language to them. That said conduct had great effect upon his mind to such an
extent that he was loosing his health as a result thereof.
That on or about December 1879 she the said defendant said to him the said plaintiff cuss you (meaning this plaintiff you aught to be killed she then took up a stick of stove wood and came at him saying I’ll break your dammed old head (meaning this plaintiff) and struck him with it, that he then ran from her and she then threw it at him. That stick of stove wood was large enough that she could have done him great bodily harm therewith.
That on or about February 1880 she stuck a sewing needle into his the left arm of this plaintiff and that said needle broke off in his arm and had to be removed with an instrument and over one half of said needle penetrated his arm. That during the spring of 1880 when I was called to see a patient as I would leave the house she would say I wish you (meaning this plaintiff) I wish you were dead I hope I shall never see you alive again I hope you will die before you get back I never want to see your face again you old whoremaster you” all the time meaning the plaintiff. During the spring of 1880 while I was preparing to make a professional visit she flew at me in a great rage and tore off of me my collar and neck tie and said now go and see your old cussed bitches you old whoremaster you. And that about said time she often said to me you had better look out or you will get what you are not looking for and your petitioner believed then and believes now that she meant thereby to do him some violence wither by poisoning or otherwise and she requested him to bring some poison to the house to kill mice but that he did not do so because he feared that she wanted to poison him. That be was afraid to eat food which she prepared unless some other member of the family partook of it first.
About February 1882 she came at me with a pair of shears or scissors saying that she would run them through me when I ran into the bedroom and closed the door which she tried to force open.
Wherefore plaintiff prays that he may be forever divorced from said defendant and that the bonds of matrimony existing between them be set aside and held for naught and that they be forever released from the obligations there of
E. M. Turner
By Hugh McCredie and J. R. Hamilton his attorneys.
State of Kansas
County of Norton} so
E. M. Turner being by me first duly sworn upon his oath says that he is plaintiff in the above entitled action and that he has heard the above and foregoing petition read and that the matters and things therein contained are true and correct .
E. M. Turner
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11 day of June 1883
W. E. Close
Clk. Dist Court
In the District Court of Norton County Kansas
October Term 1883
E. M. Turner Pltf. Vs Elizabeth Turner deft }Answer and Cross Petition
1st Count—Comes now the defendant Elizabeth Turner and
for answer to plaintiff amended petition heretofore filed by him in this case
denies each and every allegation that therein contained except the allegation
the plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife which she admits.
2nd Count—the said defendant by way of
answer and cross petition to plaintiff amended petition says: That for more then
one year prior to the filing hereof and without any cause or provocation
therefore the said plaintiff wholly abandoned this defendant and refused to
cohabit with or support her.
3rd Count---the said defendant for further
answer and cross petition alleges.
That said plaintiff during the time that she cohabited with him was guilty of
extreme cruelty towards her in the following particulars amongst others to wit:
in the month of October 1879 the plaintiff by false representing to defendant
that her life depended upon it induced her to submit to an operation with
mechanical instruments designed to produce an abortion and which said operation
did actually result in an abortion and caused her to miscarry inflicting on her
great pain and anguish. Defendant says in January 1882 the plaintiff produced
upon her an abortion by falsely pretending
to her that it was necessary in order to remove a tumor, when in truth
and in fact she was quick with child in both of said instances as plaintiff well
knew and she says after producing an abortion on her as above stated the plaintiff boasted to her that he had
rid her of the dammed young ones and said he would have no more dammed brats.
Defendant says that during the time she lived with the plaintiff he was in the
habit of cursing her and calling her vulgar names and that about three weeks
before she was confined by her last child which is plaintiff’s offspring to
wit; About October 10th 1880 without any cause or provocation except
that defendant did not like to be left alone at night, plaintiff cruelly kicked
and beat her raising large welts on her limbs and also pulled her about the room
by the hair Defendant also says that plaintiff was in the habit of slandering
her and speaking ill of her to the neighbors, calling her that dammed woman and
other opprobrious names. Defendant says that plaintiff treatment of her as
practicably detailed above, has seriously and permanently injured her
health an has made her an invalid perhaps for life.
4th Count—Defendant still answering and for cross petition swears since her marriage with plaintiff he has been guilty of gross neglect toward her I this that she is the mother of five children four by a former husband deceased prior to her marriage with plaintiff and one by plaintiff. The names and ages of which are as follows: Charles Culver age 20 years old. Willie E. Culver age 18 years old Minnie Culver age 15 years old Minnie Culver age 15 years old Myrtie Culver 11 years old and Jennie Turner 2 ½ years old all of which are now with her and dependant upon her for nurture and support and only one of them able to render her any assist in maintaining her household , that one of her sons is a confirmed invalid and requires constant attention that very many times before leaving Blissfield Mich. And removing to Norton Kansas plaintiff left her and the children with nothing to eat in the house and no credit at the groceries and after she went to Kansas she and the children often suffered the pangs of hunger on account of plaintiffs failure and neglect to provide suitable food for them to eat and insufficient quantities that about three weeks before she left Kansas in March 1882 plaintiff brought to the house a sack of flour and said by God that is the last sack of flour I will buy for you and if you stay (meaning defendant and children) after you use it up you may starve. That in march 1882 she left Norton Kansas to return to Blissfield Michigan with the full knowledge and consent of plaintiff he at the time and falsely pretending to her that he would join her at Blissfield MI in the month of July thereafter and there attend to the wants of his family, but instead of so doing he has remained at Norton Kansas ever since said time and has never been at Blissfield and during said time has contributed the sum of five dollars and no more towards the support of defendant and her children. That in August 1882 she despaired of plaintiff coming to her in Michigan as he had agreed to do and leaving her children came back to Norton to try and persuade him to fulfill his promise and to do his duty by his family that when she got to Norton plaintiff refused to talk with her and refused to provide her with means to subsist upon while in Norton, threw her shawl and baggage out of his office into the street, locked up his office jumped in his buggy and drove furiously out of town and hid from her and remained out of her sight and knowledge during her stay in Norton and took refuge at a sheep ranch in Sheridan County, Kansas as she is informed and believes. Defendant says when she got to Norton she was out of money of which fact plaintiff was well aware that before leaving town he made a Bill of Sale of his library and all office fixtures etc. for the purpose of preventing her from selling the same to get money to go home on and had one of his friends offer her a ticket to Blissfield and after waiting until she was satisfied plaintiff would not return and after trying other methods of raising money enough to get home on, she was finally forced to except the ticket and returned to Blissfield on it. And about four or five days after her departure from Norton said plaintiff came back to said last named place. Defendant says plaintiff is a practicing physician and enjoys a fairly lucrative practice worth as she is informed and believes from six to 10 hundred dollars per year that he also owns one team of horses, harness and buggy one town lot with office thereon, 80 acres of school land partly paid for , medical library, dental instruments etc. etc. and is amply able to support defendant and her children. Wherefore defendant prays the court to deny plaintiff a divorce from her as prayed for in his amended petition. And she prays the court to award her such a sum as permanent alimony out of the property of the defendant and the future profit of his business as may seem just to the court said permanent alimony to be made payable in the manner deemed best by the court and she also prays the court for such an order as may be proper for the custody maintenance and education of said children and also in regard to the control and disposition of plaintiffs property.
Elizabeth Turner
Per Louis K Pratt her Atty.
State of Michigan
County Lenawee
Elizabeth turner on oath says that she is the defendant in
the above entitled case and that she has read the foregoing answer and cross
petition and that the statements therein made are true Mrs. Elizabeth Turner.
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 9” day of July 1883.
E. M. Turner Pltf }
Vs } Journal Entry
Elizabeth Turner deft. }
Now on this 12”day of October 1883 this case came on to
be heard on the amended petition answer and reply filed herein. The Plaintiff
appeared in person and by his Attorney J. R. Hamilton and Hugh McCredie The
defendant appeared in person and by her Attorney Louis K. Pratt. The plaintiff
introduced his testimony and rested. Thereupon defendant introduced her evidence
and rested, and after rebuttal testimony by both parties, the case was submitted
to the court for decision and afterward to wit: On October 13th 1883
the court found the facts of the case to be as follows to wit: In the District
Court of Norton County Kansas
E. M. Turner pltf. }Findings of facts
Vs }and conclusions of
Elizabeth Turner deft. }law by the Court.
The Court finds from the pleadings in this case and from the evidence introduced the plaintiff and defendant were duly married on the 11th day of May 1879 and that said plaintiff has been a resident of the State of Kansas for more than on year next proceeding the filing of his petition in this case. That said plaintiff was at the commencement of this action and is at present a bona fide resident of the County of Norton, State of Kansas that said defendant has been guilty of extreme cruelty towards this plaintiff as alleged in plaintiff petition, but that said acts of cruelty had been condoned and forgiven by plaintiff and that said plaintiff and defendant continued to live together and cohabit as man and wife for several month after the time of the last act of cruelty as alleged in plaintiff petition. That these acts of cruelty was committed through no fault or inducement on the part of said plaintiff. That said plaintiff is not guilty of the acts of extreme cruelty nor gross neglect of duty nor willful abandonment towards this defendant as alleged in defendants answer and cross petition.
It is therefore considered and adjudged that said divorce
be and the same is hereby refused and the costs of this suit to be taxed by the
Clerk is adjudged against said plaintiff for which let execution issue and that
the care and custody of the child Jennie be given to the defendant and that
plaintiff pay to defendant for the support of said child the sum of $12.00 per
three months payable quarterly in advance and on failure to pay the same
promptly execution to issue therefore.—W. H. Pratt Judge
The plaintiff then asked leave to dismiss this case without prejudice to a future action but the request was refused by the Court. The plaintiff on same day filed a motion for a new trial which was by the court overruled to which ruling the plaintiff duly excepted and objected and the plaintiff allowed thirty days from the 13’day of October 1883 to make serve and settle a case made.
It is there for considered ordered and decreed by the court that the plaintiffs prayer for a divorce be denied and refused and that the cost of this case to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court be adjudged against the said plaintiff E. M. turner for which let execution issue. It is further decreed that the custody of the infant child Jennie Turner be retained by the defendant and that the plaintiff pay to the Clerk of this Court the sum of one Dollar per week in quarterly payments to wit: twelve Dollars every three months in advance said sum to be for the use and benefit of said infant Jennie Turner, said payment to continue until a further and different order in reference thereto is made by this Court. Said money when paid to said Clerk is to be subject to the order of the defendant Elizabeth Turner and if the same is not paid when due execution is to issue for the collection there of at the request of the defendant or her attorney.
To the ruling of such judgment and decree the plaintiff did
then and there except and object for the reason that the finding of facts are
not sustained by the evidence and the facts as above found to not authorize the
judgment.
I, W. E. Case Clk. Dist. Court do hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a true and complete copy of an original journal entry in the foregoing entitled case as the same appeared of record now on file in my office this 22”day of September 1886. W. E. Case Clk. Dist. Court
State of Kansas
Norton County
I. W. E. Case Clk of the Dist. Court in and for said County and State do hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a true and complete copy of the original amended petition, answer and cross petition thereto. The journal entry with proceeding findings and Judgment therein in the case of E. M. Turner vs Elizabeth Turner as the same appears of record in my office this 13” day of January 1887. This is probably 1883, sure not a good three..
W. E. Case
Clk Dist Court
©2005 by Sharleen
Wurm
This site was established Feb. 2005 by Sharleen Wurm and is
dedicated to free access to records, documents and photos of historical and
genealogical value. Documents contained herein may be copied for personal,
non-commercial use as long as this message remains on all copied material.
These records, documents and photos may not be reproduced, published or
re-published for any reason, in any format, including electronic (web
pages or CD's) and print, without prior written consent of the contributors or
copyright holders.
Last updated Saturday, June 24, 2006